At President Obama’s United Nations General Assembly address today, much attention was paid to his overtures toward Iran. However, his pointed comments directed toward Israel – which placed resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on equal footing with Iran – were just as significant.
Obama made this equal footing clear from a foreign policy perspective when he said:
In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab- Israeli conflict.
When Obama came to the topic of Israel and Palestine, he first affirmed both peoples’ right to exist in secure, self-determining states. Then, he turned the speech personal:
Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just and possible. And I believe there’s a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state.
[…]
On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young Palestinians in Ramallah, whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by the pain they feel and having no firm place in the community of nations.
They are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and they’re frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they, too, recognize that two states is the only real path to peace. Because just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is here to stay.
Some conservatives were apoplectic at Obama’s mention of the word ‘occupation,’ as if in uttering it, he had betrayed Israel in ways a true ally would not do.
However, it’s the word Obama did not say that was actually significant. For as the President implored the world community to join the push for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Obama failed to mention the one word that is an obstacle to such peace more than anything: settlements.
It was heartening to hear Obama’s words today at the UNGA. However, they will remain just words if America continues to enable Israel’s self-destructive drive to gobble up all of the West Bank. See, the United States is the only country capable of compelling Israel to stop expanding its settlements and the appropriation of Palestinian land – a land that has become so bifurcated and segmented already as to make the formation of a state nearly impossible.
It is the United States which, as Israel has continued its illegal settlement enterprise anchoring the occupation, has continued to give Israel $3 billion annually.
I applaud Obama’s words today. But if Obama truly wants to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine, his administration will have to start by wielding the incredible influence it has over Israel in direct and clear ways.
Otherwise, Obama’s speech will end up being just another speech.
-§-
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, now out from Oneworld Publications.
Follow him on Twitter @David_EHG.
David — you miss the mark in a big way to the extent that you are suggesting that you are placing blame for the lack of peace between Israelis and the Palestinians on the Administration’s failure to “[wield] the incredible influence it has over Israel in direct and clear ways.” That phrase, while attractive to the BDS crowd that you align yourself with, ignores the fact that Israelis and Palestinians must stop looking at each other to take the first step and make the first grand gesture. Israelis need to stop their expansion of settlements . . . now. And Palestinians need to clamp down on the terrorist violence against Israelis, be it in the Hebron (as occurred a couple days ago), in Israel proper, or elsewhere. And these actions need to come from within, otherwise they are meaningless. Unless and until Israelis and Palestinians cease engaging in conduct specifically designed to destroy any shred of the good will and good faith that is absolutely necessary to make a peace agreement even remotely possible, no amount of influence wielding will by the Administration is going to turn this thing around.
The people who want the Administration to exert extreme and harsh pressure on Israel are those that hate Israel and would just as soon see it gone. They are not interested ina two-state solution — unless, that is, it is with a full Palestinian right of return to Israel, which would thereby lead to the end of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Those that want a true peace based on two states know full well that while U.S. influence is indeed necessary, achieving peace is a lot more complicated than having a third party (even an essential third party) exerting immense pressure.
In the mean time, you have worked hard to establish street cred with those on the P side, but all you do is fire up the worst kind of Israel-hatred with your rhetoric that mimics the kind coming from the one-state crowd, who want Israel replaced by the non-Jewish state of Palestine. I get that you are trying to sell books to these people, but has it ever occurred to you to try and use your new-found street cred to do something other than fire up the hatred coming from the worst of one side? Or is your new-found alignment with this crowd too essential to your ability to sell books and make a living? Just know that when you align yourself so closely with the “we hate Israel” crowd, as you have done through your years of one-sided anti-Israel blogging that spins everything against Israel (even if it means leaving out essential facts that might cut away from your your thesis), it is hard to take seriously your statements claiming to be a Zionist and in favor of a two-state solution. Rather, it sounds like empty words that indicate a lack of integrity.
I have an idea. Why don’t you come to the J-Street conference, and show that you can find common cause with the progressive pro-Israel community that truly desires a two-state solution to the conflict. My guess is that you won’t do it, because you believe that finding such common ground would somehow hurt your popularity with the one-state/No Israel/BDS crowd that you have aligned yourself with. I hope I’m wrong.
I’m a member of J Street and a vociferous two-state proponent, Albert.
I know you’d prefer that weren’t the case — it would make your approbation so much more effective — but such are the facts.
No, actually I do prefer that were the case, because then your writing would be consistent with and supportive of its mission, rather than pandering to a crowd that hates Israel and wants it gone. So, forgive me if I don’t believe you.
I have written about my support more times than I care to recount. Oh, and I reject this “pandering” nonsense, which is simply an attempt to delegitimize my writing and perspective.
I could easily take the opposite tact, and go on-and-on about how you are nothing but a one-state proponent who panders to the “Greater Israel” crowd with your hatred of Muslims and desire for the death of all Palestinians.
But since doing so would be equally absurd, I’ll end here by saying good luck to you. I won’t be responding again.
Cheers.
Well I will be very happily surprised to see future pieces by you that do more than pay lip service to the progressive Zionist vision of two states for two peoples, rather than using it as a mere set-up line for your typical one-sided crapping on Israel (or crapping on the Obama Administration for not crapping on Israel). Again, I hope you prove me wrong, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.
David – you may feel that you are a supporter of J Street, but, honestly your positions run contrary to theirs on almost every level. You have come out publicly in support of BDS and while you claim not to be affiliated with any official BDS movement, you still support it. I am quite sure you are aware that J Street explicitly REJECTS BDS or the use of any sanctions with regards to Israel and it’s policy.
You state that you support the Two-State solution. Ok.. let’s take you at your word, but what do you feel is an equitable solution for claimed Palestinian Right of Return. J Street also explicitly rejects that as well. You have never expressed WHAT it is that you feel regarding this issue but you have alluded to what the BDS/One State “crowd” calls “a just solution”. Do you agree with them that Israel should offer to repatriate all those Palestinians as defined by the UN to pre-1967 lines? Honestly, I wonder if you will answer this – I doubt it, but,,, you never know.
Honestly, I think you are far more in line with JVP and Rebecca Vilkomerson. If you do differ from them, then please let us know, in what way are you different from them. And really, look at your Blogroll… Mondoweiss… Really? They are extremely harsh critics of J Street and indeed host commentary and articles that are outright anti-Semitic. Oh yeah and your wishing for more photo diaries of Friendly Stranger (who posted straight out propaganda pieces from Hamas, the PFLP, and before she was warned Press TV). Exactly how do you square THAT with your claims of support for Zionism.
I think Albert pretty much has hit “the nail on the head” here. Your writing is reflective of only two perspectives and that is the “Post-Zionist” / “anti-Zionist” perspective. I am not sure why you don’t simply come out and admit it, or why you won’t answer simple questions regarding your beliefs to clear things up.
Anyway… would it kill you to engage and deal honestly with criticism. You ask the Pro-Israel side to do that, why can’t you do the same thing.
Shalom
I agree.
David, why can’t you just state where you stand on these crucial issues?
There was a man – who followed the Lord in all his ways – he was first to worship last to leave – He sang unto the Lord – all day – and this man took great pride in his work for his was the best – But every time he had a child it would become inflicted and died – this happened many times over – and finally his wife became inflicted and passed away – His heart tearing inside himself he cried unto the Lord – why have you sent inflictions upon my life and now I have no sons or daughter and no wife – and Now I even have become inflicted and suffer these Long days and nights – The Lord spoke to his Heart simply saying – It is Not I that have sent – inflictions unto you – It is yourself – who called these Inflictions – You the Proud Maker – of – weapons of death!!!
…’Israelis and Palestinians must stop looking at each other to take the first step and make the first grand gesture. Israelis need to stop their expansion of settlements . . . now. And Palestinians need to clamp down on the terrorist violence against Israelis, be it in the Hebron (as occurred a couple days ago), in Israel proper, or elsewhere’…
Objectively, the PA has been doing exactly that for years. On the other hand, settlements grow continuously. I don’t think there are any other significant facts concerning this exquisite linkage between terrorism and settlements ( sorry, not settlements, just the expansion of settlements ).
So, this ‘grand gesture’ thing, that we’ve heard hundreds of times, actually means nothing.
By asking again and again for a nonsensical ‘grand gesture’, many seem to believe they found a nice refuge to hide from the conscience of their own collaborationism.
Actually, the PA has been doing nothing of the sort. From naming town squares after suicide bombers to showing antisemitic rants on their TV stations to making music videos where they claim Jaffa and Haifa and glorify terrorists, the PA is doing precisely the opposite of clamping down on terrorist violence.
Helder, I was just thinking not a word in response to the settlements issue. I’m tempted to have a bumper sticker with the Star of David and the words, “It’s the Settlements, Stupid!” A militaristic fascist state. I really don’t think that’s Jewish according to my limited knowledge of the Torah.
I too believe that the occupation has rendered great changes in israeli democracy. but i would be cautious before i proclaimed, as the writer has done, that there is a growing recognition of this among young israelis. sure, there are some who feel this way. but to my dismay, the great majority of israelis, young and old, sit aside and accept 46 years of occupation as a given — that that does not include the number, which i would venture is larger than those the writer alludes to, who see the occupation as a virtue, not a vice, a realization of israel’s historic place and rights. liberals and foreign jews can grasp at straws, but israelis like me have to face the very discouraging realities, including the slow but steady shrinking of the portion of the electorate who would willingly support a peace agreement, on the wildly optistimic assumption that political leaders on both sides are capable of reaching one.
Well hanan that is interesting and as an Israeli you have to live with the consequences of your decisions. Even though I am an American, I lived in Israel for a year, and follow the politics of it closely and yes there are discouraging realities. One thing I would say – and were I Israeli (I would probably be a member of Avodah – though before the election I would have supported HaTanuah) is that one cannot just look at Israel here. The realities of the Palestinian polity and their movements are a factor. When only 29% of Palestinians polled say they would support a One State Solution where Jews and Arabs are equal… AND where over 70% list Palestinian Right of Return as one of the top two issues facing their polity, there is a real problem. They may accept a Two State Solution but do they accept it as Israel as it was conceived of by Ben-Gurion and the Yishuv or do they accept their own State AND an Israel that has full Palestinian R.O.R. (or in effect Palestine AND an Israel with a Palestinian majority)?
That is the central issue facing peace advocates today. To make peace it takes two sides. I think Albert K above is very clear in what is a standard Liberal Zionist position. So it is all fine and well to take on the Right because they do negatively impact the Peace Process.. HOWEVER, they are no more of a negative impact than the other side (the Palestinian polity) who demands the exact same things with the names changed.
One wonders if the angels are male or female… It’s certainly an interesting topic, guaranteed to distract us from other less crucial issues.
Well, many, for some misterious reason, don’t believe in angels. Therefore, one has to choose some other discussion topic, like the unsolvable israeli/palestinian conflict, which, hélas, would require a genuine will to make peace, perhaps even true love and an inspiring musical theme floating above a magical sunset. Obviously, a fairy tale. Won’t happen. But still, such discussion has the virtue of distracting us all from the unpleasant realities of the ongoing drang nach Osten.
Again and again, collaborationism behind soft rethoric.
The parameters have been quite clear for more than a decade, they were clarified in the arab peace peace plan, continuously refined in the works of the Geneva Initiative, put on paper by Abbas and Olmert, and supported by the UN representatives of almost the entire mankind.
Still, it seems the issue still needs a thoughtful meditation on the appropriate conditions to, let’s say, establish a time frame for meaningful exchanges of opinion on the possibility of creating the correct mood to start talks about the terms of an eventual agreement about the place and moment to join efforts with the aim of reaching a consensus on the need to eventually discuss the possibility of opening talks about creating some kind of peace plan.
Silly, isn’t it ?
Unfortunately, things have changed, lately. Even the western bloc compagnons de route are slowly beginning to move in the direction of an imposed solution.
But apparently, even after South Africa, many still believe that there’s a place for the good old white supremacism of the early european XXth century. Considering the most probable outcome of such an attitude, the distance between lazy collaborationism and criminal irresponsibility risks being quite short. Time will tell.
Would peace with the Palestinians resemble the peace that exists within the Arab world? 110,000 dead in Syria
Helder, When you wrote “drang nach Osten, I knew you are German and even with my limited knowledge of German, I know what it means. I had a bizarre thought. Perhaps Germans would make the best negotiators in an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Obviously America, the puppet of Israel has no credibility as a neutral party.
“America, the puppet of Israel . . .”
Nice use of antisemitic trope.
I guess itt was only a matter of time before the Jew-hatred become blatant here.
Well come on, it wouldn’t be a DHG article without some good ole’ fashioned “Jews control the world” nonsense, now would it? I sure David will be here to stand against this anti-Semitic crap – don’t you think? 😉
Jim, I heard that the Jews control the US government and the Palestinians have no friends n the world, us that true.?
Oh yeah Jim… that is just a phenomenal idea, the Germans acting as mediators wrt Israel. Wow……… that one just boggles the mind.
No, I’m not german, I’m portuguese.
But I often use that expression, as the israeli and german processes were rooted in the same ideological soup that Europe boiled to the limit, with the results we know… Be it in Portugal, Spain, Germany, Russia, Italy or a few others, including Palestine.
In fact, I take Israel as one of the last living symbols of the european XXth century, exhibiting a fair number of its most dubious achievements.
You’re really digging yourself into a hlole now